Patent troll Lodsys also threatening Android devs

Lodsys, attempting to corner the market on licensing fees for in-app …

Two weeks ago, IP holding company Lodsys made waves by targeting small, independent iOS developers in a campaign to claim patent licensing fees for the use of in-app purchasing. That same company is now going after Android developers, citing the same dubious patent claims as the basis for requiring individual developers to pay for licensing of its patent.

Lodsys sent letters to at least a dozen iOS developers informing them that their use of Apple's in-app purchase APIs constituted infringement of its US Patent #7,222,078, "Methods and systems for gathering information from units of a commodity across a network." Lodsys claims this patent covers anything that might constitute an in-app upgrade button, and that Apple already licenses these patents, but the license does not extend to individual developers that implement in-app purchasing in their apps.

At least one Android developer has reported receiving a similar letter from Lodsys after adding support for in-app purchasing several weeks ago. The developer, going by the name "markusn82," posted the information to the "Android Discuss" Google Group.

Some developers believe the '078 patent is overly broad and could possibly be ruled invalid if any of the threatened developers took the case to trial. Further analysis suggests that even if the patent is valid, it does not apply to independent developers as Lodsys claims. However, none of the independent developers have the bankroll necessary to mount a lengthy and costly legal process to have the patent challenged in court.

Developers began campaigning for Apple to step in. The company's legal team sent a stern letter to Lodsys saying it should "cease its false assertions that the App Makers’ use of licensed Apple products and services in any way constitute infringement of any Lodsys patent." Apple said that its license to the patents—acquired in a deal with the previous patent owner Intellectual Ventures—extends to all its customers and business partners. In Apple's view, that expressly includes developers.

To cover all the bases, some iOS developers are attempting to pool resources to fight Lodsys if lawsuits do materialize.

Lodsys has claimed that both Microsoft and Google already have similar licenses to its portfolio of four patents, also acquired through deals with Intellectual Ventures. If Apple's analysis is correct, Android developers should be similarly covered by Google's license. However, even if Google were to send a similar letter to Lodsys warning it to stop threatening Android developers, that may not prevent Lodsys from following through on its threat to file patent infringement lawsuits.

Google did not respond to our request for comment on the matter before publication time.

I am typically a very centrist person in my political views. However I would gladly put these Lodsys guys right up against a wall for their blatant abuse of our legal system and humanity for personal enrichment.

One hopes the endgame is an end to software patents. But that's doubtful.

I spoke to a friend recently who works as one of the head IP lawyers for Google Maps product. He is also involved in dealings with government to try and get rid of these ridiculous IP laws. Unfortunately he says it ain't happening at all... :(

That troll picture should be replaced with a picture of a bunch of fat white guys in suits sitting in giant red leather chairs behind mahogany desks, flanked by framed law school diplomas. That, my friends, is the enemy.

Again, it is the height of ludicrousness that a software patent claim can be considered viable for an alleged infringement in a run time platform that did not exist when the patent was granted as there is no way the claimants could have demonstrated a "working device" at the time of filing. It is shameful.

What's the international position on these patent threats. As a developer based in the EU where software patents don't exist, am I exempt from this nonsense?

[Edit] Not that I develop for iOS or Android specifically but this kind of thing does worry me...

If you sell to US or distribute in US you may be targeted.Main problem is that Android Market and AppStore are US based, so subject to those patents. I wish Google would move all EU Market operations to Luxemburg and be done with US patent nonsense.

I might not be an official patent attorney, but trust me and take this to court and counter sue it being invalid. There is more than enough legal ammunition above 2007 that will put this software patent to rest.

Again, it is the height of ludicrousness that a software patent claim can be considered viable for an alleged infringement in a run time platform that did not exist when the patent was granted as there is no way the claimants could have demonstrated a "working device" at the time of filing. It is shameful.

Demonstrating the mechanism in code would have been trivial. I suppose that would be enough. You don't actually have to demonstrate a patented mechanism in a specific device, since you aren't patenting the device, you are patenting the mechanism.

Getting code working on an iPaq connected via WiFi to a dummy shop would probably suffice to fullfil the patent requirements.But IANAL, so I may be off base. Seems sensible, though.

That said, these patent trolls are ridiculous. The patent system needs an overhaul - and not just banning software patents, I think those can easily have merit. But it needs to be much more open and discovery of patents needs to be encouraged.I think I read somewhere (Ars?) that doing patent research is implicity discouraged, since if you do research, don't find patents in confict with your idea, go ahead with it and it is later shown there WAS a patent, the court can decide you "willfully infringed" which is a lot worse than just accidentally infringing.So apparently often companies don't even bother looking for an existing patent since they can easily miss one, and then they get slammed in court.Not sure how much truth there is to it of course.

Again, it is the height of ludicrousness that a software patent claim can be considered viable for an alleged infringement in a run time platform that did not exist when the patent was granted as there is no way the claimants could have demonstrated a "working device" at the time of filing. It is shameful.

There hasn't been a legal requirement for a "working device" since the 19th century.

Again, it is the height of ludicrousness that a software patent claim can be considered viable for an alleged infringement in a run time platform that did not exist when the patent was granted as there is no way the claimants could have demonstrated a "working device" at the time of filing. It is shameful.

Demonstrating the mechanism in code would have been trivial. I suppose that would be enough. You don't actually have to demonstrate a patented mechanism in a specific device, since you aren't patenting the device, you are patenting the mechanism.

We simply cannot allow a patent applicant to say "Here is a description of software to do such and such. It will work on all past, present and future computer systems." Ridiculous but it is essentially what we have now. Patents should be limited to what the applicant demonstrated at the time of the application.

For software, it is necessary to show code as the particulars of what it takes to make it work will be apparent in the most objective manner possible (actual code is also evidence that the applicant actually did the work to implement the described software and thus deserving of the patent). So if the code only works in Windows, he can't claim infringement of software that does the exact thing on Linux. If they can show code for both then they are covered for both. This is very fair.

Again, it is the height of ludicrousness that a software patent claim can be considered viable for an alleged infringement in a run time platform that did not exist when the patent was granted as there is no way the claimants could have demonstrated a "working device" at the time of filing. It is shameful.

Demonstrating the mechanism in code would have been trivial. I suppose that would be enough. You don't actually have to demonstrate a patented mechanism in a specific device, since you aren't patenting the device, you are patenting the mechanism.

We simply cannot allow a patent applicant to say "Here is a description of software to do such and such. It will work on all past, present and future computer systems." Ridiculous but it is essentially what we have now. Patents should be limited to what the applicant demonstrated at the time of the application.

For software, it is necessary to show code as the particulars of what it takes to make it work will be apparent in the most objective manner possible. So if the code only works in Windows, he can't claim infringement of software that does the exact thing on Linux. If they can show code for both then they are covered for both. This is very fair.

Well, if that's what you're saying then you're issue is much broader than this particular case.

It would be funny (not for the developers, of course) if Google called them out and they went on to sue WP7/Palm/whatever devs...

You say that like that isn't the exact plan. So long as the SDK provider doesn't have their ducks in a row, Lodsys is going to be able to extract license fees from the developers directly, which could be/will be the kiss of death for those platforms. Any bets on if it's RIM or HP that is next?

It would be funny (not for the developers, of course) if Google called them out and they went on to sue WP7/Palm/whatever devs...

You say that like that isn't the exact plan. So long as the SDK provider doesn't have their ducks in a row, Lodsys is going to be able to extract license fees from the developers directly, which could be/will be the kiss of death for those platforms. Any bets on if it's RIM or HP that is next?

I strongly doubt Lod$ys will manage to actually kill any platform. It's not even in their financial interest; if there's no devs, who's left for them to extort money from?

So let me get this straight - Loadsys has proven to Microsoft, Google and Apple that their patents are valid enough for each of these big companies to license (and all three HAVE licensed the patents in question) - yet people here are calling them out as Patent Trolls.

Patent Trolls have flimsy patents and are trying to make a quick buck. Loadsys, in having Microsoft, Google, and Apple already license this patent, has already shown that the patent has some validity. How does asking others to license it (clearly as they must have asked Microsoft, Google and Apple to license) count as trolldom?

So let me get this straight - Loadsys has proven to Microsoft, Google and Apple that their patents are valid enough for each of these big companies to license (and all three HAVE licensed the patents in question) - yet people here are calling them out as Patent Trolls.

Patent Trolls have flimsy patents and are trying to make a quick buck. Loadsys, in having Microsoft, Google, and Apple already license this patent, has already shown that the patent has some validity. How does asking others to license it (clearly as they must have asked Microsoft, Google and Apple to license) count as trolldom?

Perhaps you missed it, but by all accounts, Apple obtained its license as part of a patent bundle from Intellectual Ventures well before Lodsys was a twinkle in a Mark Small's eye.

You definitely missed the point where Apple’s license covers any technology used by Apple – therefore any developer using said technology under license from Apple.

What's the international position on these patent threats. As a developer based in the EU where software patents don't exist, am I exempt from this nonsense?

[Edit] Not that I develop for iOS or Android specifically but this kind of thing does worry me...

If you sell to US or distribute in US you may be targeted.Main problem is that Android Market and AppStore are US based, so subject to those patents. I wish Google would move all EU Market operations to Luxemburg and be done with US patent nonsense.

But how can US only patents be enforced outside the country where they apply? European developers have been sent letters by Lodsys, why should they pay any attention and do they have to?

So let me get this straight - Loadsys has proven to Microsoft, Google and Apple that their patents are valid enough for each of these big companies to license (and all three HAVE licensed the patents in question) - yet people here are calling them out as Patent Trolls.

To extend this: MS, Google & Apple all decided it was worth it to license this pathetic patent at $XXX than it was to go to court and pay their own layers to invalidate it (surely they'd win) - note, the companies were probably not working in concert. Thus, each probably figured (guesses): $100k to license vs. $200k to invalidate. If Apple had spent the money to fight, they'd be "net down" $100k -- but, at the same time, BOOST their 2 competitors who no longer need to license the patent (and undoubtedly have "refund" clauses in their contracts).

That is what they are now fighting. They are now hoping Google will instead cough up more money to imdemnify their developers. They know that if Google stands up and say "go for it", they lose...

... that is why Lodsys is a shell company. There is no money for Google (or MS or Apple) to reclaim if they win a court-fight. The patent-owner is a different company, who licensed it to Lodsys.

This is, beyond normal patent trolls, the ultimate patent troll equivalent of a "hail mary" toss. They know Apple/Google/MS have a license... this is all about scaring a few more $$ out of innocent victims.

I apologize for being the "how is this not obvious, how can it be patentable" guy, but having read the abstract and looked through the diagrams; Doesn't this patent basically cover "user sending and receiving information over a network?" Prior art would be: any terminal connected to any computer system or network, including ATM machines and even dial-up BBSes(depending on how network is defined.) It is of course obvious because computer networks are designed for transferring information.

That troll picture should be replaced with a picture of a bunch of fat white guys in suits sitting in giant red leather chairs behind mahogany desks, flanked by framed law school diplomas. That, my friends, is the enemy.

Something that I thought was funny from the lodysys Q&A on their site:

"Q: What is Dan Abelow’s involvement? Is Intellectual Ventures behind Lodsys or controlling Lodsys in some way?... Neither Dan Abelow nor Intellectual Ventures has any investment, control, or knowledge of the specific licensing activities, including who is licensed (except for what is publicly disclosed, or happened on licensing activity prior to Lodsys).

Dan does have a consulting agreement to work with Lodsys on matters pertaining to the Lodsys patents. This agreement is for a fixed fee, and if that fee is exceeded, then he is paid a consulting day rate. Dan has no direct economic interests in the patent licensing activity."

The say on the blog they pay Dan a flat fee for consulting. I wish that there were a way to check the financial transations between Lodsys and Dan to see if there's anything fishy going on in some sort of counter-suit.

An iOS developer would probably use Apple's mechanism for in app purchase, and would likely be subject to Apple's licensing deal with Lodsys. Or so argue Apple at least. Does Google provide the same API to Andoid developers or would you have to build an in-app puchase mechanism yourself? If so, you probably won't be protected by any license Google have for Lodsys' patent.